Bennett

I have not tried to turn on the heat in the two and a half years I've owned this aircraft. Just to know, I will try it this weekend. Living in California has some advantages. Thanks for the heads up.

The newest Foreflight on the iPad/iPad Mini has this feature - variable distance, or time rings, and a projection line for time or distance. . I set my iPad Mini for distance (and the 796's projection line is set for 10 minutes time). Nice to have this information, especially close to the destination airport. Also to pick an airport to change tanks over. (Awkward sentence, but you get the idea). Avionics just keep getting better and better, with useful information (that can be turned off, if you find it distracting). .

Yes, in the event of the failure of the remote audio panel, radio two is fully functional.

I mentioned strong tailwinds at altitude, so ground speed yesterday (not TAS) was 190 Kts. The class Bravo rings around San Francisco airport require dropping below 8000' then 6000' and then 4000' VFR. I typically descend at about 450' per minute after scooting under the 8000' ring which gets me to about 3500' about 10 miles from the airport. We normally get a straight in to Rwy 30, so I have plenty if time to bleed off airspeed to drop the gear. Yesterday the tail winds continued (though diminishing) to about 1000'. TPA at KSQL. Is 800' with the airport at just above sea level. With the tailwind I was getting to my normal descent point for a straight in at 3 miles from the runway faster than normal, and a steeper descent was prudent, hence the deployment of speed brakes. Could I have done different things? Sure, but speed brakes made it real easy. Just another tool to use when it makes sense to do so Clever point about all 201 cowls being LoPresti cowls. I do like the ram air system on the aftermarket system, and the workmanship on mine is just fine. I recall that Paul at LASAR tested the PowerFlow exhaust system on a 201, and I called him this morning to ask if he still had the data. He said he didn't, but he said that both climb and level speed were improved. When Mod Works cut off my step in the 261, we tested the airplane before and after via averaging the four cardinal directions, and saw a two knot improvement in speed after removing the step. Of course, even at the same altitude, weather conditions could have been different. I sometimes slip off the step, so it won't be missed when I have it removed on the 201 It is hard to gain any significant speed improvements on the J, but the cumulative effects of all the mods I have give me a reasonable cruising speed, and I am happy with the mods.

I have them both, and the GTN 750 is far superior not only for the size of the display, but the interface is much easier to use. The 650 requires a split alphabet for entering waypoints, and entering VOR and ILS frequencies takes an extra step or two. I am using the remote intercom (wonderful 3-D features for listening to two radios at once), the remote transponder, and remote box GDL 88 box for ADS-B in/out. This frees up panel space. You would probably have to (want to) have new sheetmetal cut for the panel, but I think you will truly enjoy the GTN 750.

Increasing speed comes from three major areas: 1. Increasing power, 2. Reducing drag, 3. Reducing weight The common mods for increasing power for a stock 201 would be 1. The PowerFlow exhaust System, 2. Using the LoPresti cowl version of Ram Air, 3. the "Scimitar" Top Prop for more effective power transfer efficiency, and 4. Turbonormalizing, or a straight turbo conversion. Remember that you have to add a great deal of power to equal the speed differences brought about by a reduction in drag. The PowerFlow exhaust system seems to live up to its hype, with some increase in power,hence climb rate and level speed. I cannot quantify this, as I have always batched my mods, and installed several at once. One thing to consider: At each annual the PowerFlow exhaust system has to be serviced, and this has averaged about $500 per year for me. The LoPresti cowl is a piece of art - well built, at least in the early versions. I will come back to this under drag reduction, but the Ram Air function is very effective in helping maintain power with increasing altitude. I gain about 1 to 1.25" MP around 8,000' - 10,000', which is a significant percentage gain in power. I really like the Hartzell two bladed Top Prop. For another aircraft I owned I experimented with several props; two and three bladed, and the modern two balded prop appears to be more efficient at transmitting power. I have no experience with turbonormalizing for a 201, but I can tell you, that below about 8,000' my 261 conversion (turbo, with a critical altitude of 24,000') was no faster than my 201. Part of this because the 261 was heavier, and partially because the optional McCalley prop I was running was optimized for the flight levels, and not very effective until at least the mid teens. Drag reduction: Most speed mods fall into this area. In my opinion, the the biggest "bangs for the buck" are 1. Remove the fixed step. On the 261, this single mod, done separately from the others, resulted in a solid 2 knots increase in KTAS. My 201 still has the step, but this will be removed soon. 2. Have the aircraft rigged by one of the MSC experts - LASAR, Top Gun, Maxwell and a few others. Just using the travelling boards is not enough, in my opinion. The aircraft has to be flown, and ever finer adjustments made. The ailerons are especially sensitive, and above all, don't let the aircraft fly in a slip or skid while in level flight. 3. Keep useful "stuff" in the baggage compartment to keep an aft CG; especially when flying alone, or with a co-pilot. 4. the LoPresti cowl will increase your speed, but at quite an expense. There are many parts to the LoPresiti cowl - new overlapping gear doors, with a fairing behind, a windshield fairing, and of course, optimized air intakes and exhausts. If Mooney were ever to build new 201s, this should be part of that program. 5. The one piece belly pan is not so much useful as drag reduction as it is a place to move a few antennas inside. Some antennas seem to function effectively when inside a fiberglass belly pan, while others, like stormscopes (at least in my experience), do not. 6. Reduce the number of external antennas, if possible. The VOR antennas (soon to be obsolete), whether the towel bar, or blade type, can be moved into fiberglass wingtips. I did this on the 261, and the VORs worked just fine. I haven't done this on my 201, as I believe that VORs may well be gone in the next five years, and there is a good deal of expense in running shielded wires through the wings, and modifying the wingtips to hold the antennas. What I want (there is no STC for this that I know of), would be to build a "well" or compartment of sorts directly above the hat shelf with a clear plastic top to house the "external" GPS, XM, and ELT antennas. These antennas, and the Comm antennas really cause a good deal of drag. 6. The Top Prop two bladed prop has less drag than the three bladed Top Prop (and some other three bladed props). 7. Keep the aircraft polished, and remove bugs from the leading edges of the wings, and from the flush riveted areas of the wings to maintain laminar flow for as long as possible. Also, keep the belly clean and polished. Surprisingly effective in reducing drag. Weight reduction: A balancing act. Putting stuff in the baggage compartment moves the CG aft, which is good as a drag reducing measure, but the added weight reduces performance - speed. Likewise, full fuel adds weight, but increases range, avoiding a fuel stop. As Jose points out, avoiding a fuel stop can result in a significant reduction in block time. And you don't have to add long range tacks for flights out to 700 miles or so. I fly from San Carlos to Scottsdale, Arizona without an interim fuel stop when I run LOP, giving up a few KTAS, but being able to land with my personal landing fuel minimum of one and a half hours usable fuel in the tanks. When I have flown this route Balls to the Wall (not a sexist remark - balls are the tops of the throttle/mixture/prop quadrant levers for those who have them), I have to make a fuel stop, and while my True airspeed increases by up to 5 or 6 KTAS, the fuel stop kills block time. And while we are talking about block times, having speed brakes allow you to maintain high speeds closer to the destination airport. I don't see them as a crutch (I guess I'm a wuss pilot), but as an effective tool to dump speed before setting up for landing. Yesterday I had strong tailwinds aloft down to about 1000', and then a moderate quartering headwind at the runway. I rode those tailwinds down from altitude at ground speeds up to about 190 Knots to within about 6 miles to the runway, given a straight in clearance, then popped the speed brakes, slowed to gear speed, dropped the rollers, and then full flaps, and crossed the runway threshold at 70 Knots, and touched down at 65 Knots.

Over the years in two Mooneys I think I have tried just about every speed mod available, including some one off 337 stuff. Currently my M 20J has LoPresti cowl, a Powerflow exhaust system, a one piece belly pan, very smooth new paint, a two bladed Top Prop, and all sorts of fairings. The rigging is perfect (hands off in cruise), done by LASAR, flow matched cylinders, prop balanced to the limits of the balancing machine, but many too many antennas. For my 261 conversion we buried most of the antennas, but now I have two external GPS antennas, the towel rack on the tail, a 406 ELT antenna, a ADS-B antenna, and a transponder antenna. And two comm antennas personally, I think these antennas nullify some of the speed mods. At 8000', ram air open, 2550 RPM, and a fuel flow of about 9.6 GPH , I true out at 160-163 KTAS . I can eke out a couple more knots running ROP, but I hate paying for the extra fuel. I spend a fair amount of time looking a predicted winds aloft to maximize tail winds, and minimize head winds, and even consider alternate routes. By the way, I keep lots if survival gear in the baggage department to keep an aft CG. I also play the fuel flow/ power/ speed game to avoid unnecessary fuel stops on long flights, but I never land with less than one and a half hours (14 gal) usable in the tanks. My 261 was better for really long trips (115 gallons), but that required flying in the mid flight levels, sucking oxygen, and generally freezing. The 201 is fine for 500 - 700 mile trips, and I normally fly at non- oxygen altitudes. Any Mooney is a good aircraft, and faster than most.

As much as I enjoy visiting war bird aircraft museums in the US, Europe, and Brazil (really great aircraft museum outside of Rio), nothing can compare with the sight and sounds of P-51s, Spitfires, and most WW II fighters. Airplanes are designed to be flown, and if I were a rich guy, I would buy a Mustang, or Hellcat, etc., and restore her to flyable condition, and then take her on tour of the airshows so that a new generation can experience the sight of these aircraft pulling Gs, and hear the incredible sounds of these magnificent machines. The only changes I would want from the original configurations, would be modern avionics. When I got to old to fly my war bird, I would donate her to one of the remaining fighter museums. I can't imagine the total costs to own and operate a first rate war bird, but I am glad that there are some folks out there who can. A few years ago, a friend and I got up early in the morning, and photographed a group of Mustangs and Spits from an observation tower at Oshkosh. We shot high grain black and white film, and with the mists rising, we could imagine ourselves in England during WW II. While we were finishing our photoshoot, two of the Mustangs fired up their engines, and that experience was magical. Sure we want to preserve war birds for future generations, but it is wonderful to see and hear them flying for as long as possible. Preserving them on video is not as satisfying as standing out in the open and seeing the performance these airplanes are capable of. Now all I have to do is become a rich old guy by winning the lottery. I'm already old.

KAP150 (w altitude hold), Icarus SAM GPSS steering, GTN 750 coupled. Great combination.

The BART station in Oakland is fairly safe in daylight hours, but I, personally, would be very wary at night there. I also think transferring from BART to Muni, and visa versa is a bit of a pain. I called the local Yellow cab company in San Carlos, and they said the taxi fare would be approximately $60-$65 each way, so I would measure that against renting a car, plus parking at Candlestick Park, plus gas for the rental car, or Zip Car which would be about $110.00 for twenty four hours, plus parking, but no gas charges, or walking a mile or so to Cal Train, paying their fare, and then transferring to MUNI, paying their fare for two persons. And of course, what is convenience worth to you? Another alternative: Check out www.sanfranciscofootballbus.com They have a bus that leaves from the San Carlos Cal Train station (about a mile from San Carlos Airport) at 10:25 am on September 8th, directly to Candlestick Park (with a few stops in between), Called the "Blue Route" Round trip price is $20.00 per person. Hope this helps.

Like Jose, I have added wheels to my Robotow, but I am using the battery that came with it. Still going strong after about two years. I use it to maneuver my 201 in and out of my hangar, and I have never run down the power below 20% of available. LASAR uses their robotow all day long to pull airplanes in and out of their hangars, and they seem very happy with the unit. In fact, that is why I bought this brand. Not cheap, but it sure saves my back. I have an incline from the ramp to my hangar, and even the hangar floor slopes a bit upwards from the front, so I find the Robotow very helpful. One nice thing about this type of design is that it would be very difficult to exceed nose wheel towing limits, something you cannot say about tractors/lawnmowers converted to tugs.

Public transportation from San Carlos or Oakland to Candlestick is a bit difficult. The easiest would be to fly to San Carlos, and take a taxi to Candlestick. It might be a bit more difficult finding a taxi to get back, but hardly impossible. If you are a member of Zip Car, there are at least 6 or 7 Zip Car stalls at San Carlos, and they have an "occasional user plan". $60 per year, $25 to register, and $8 - $9 per hour while using the car. You could also rent with Enterprise, who will pick you up at the airport. The Cal Train station to San Francisco is less than a mile away, but won't get you to Candlestick. You could ride it to the downtown station, or even the South San Francisco station and then take a cab. This would probably be less expensive, but not as convenient, as taking a taxi all the way from San Carlos. BART is not far from Oakland airport, and I suspect that someone at Kaiser Air might run you over to the nearest BART station. BART doesn't get you to Candlestick, but there is a BART station in South San Francisco, where you can pick up a cab. Personally, I would fly to San Carlos, and take a cab. Yellow cab serves San Carlos, but you would have to call them when you land. The Zip Car thing is not a bad deal if you fly to airports that have the service. The cars are kept in really good condition, and you are renting them "wet". Do not refuel, and return them at any time to any Zip Car location. Great for short term rentals, not for long sight seeing trips.

Marauder is right about the GTN 750. If you are in NAV mode on your autopilot, and you are following a flight plan, there is a setting to choose an offset distance. Some old time pilots prefer to stay slightly offset from a commonly used Victor airway as a anti-collision methodology. The new avionics boxes steer right down the middle of a line drawn between two VORs, or down a Victor airway, and everyone is doing the same.

Mix of both, with a current bias towards trips under 250 miles or so.

We get very little Eastern type "weather" here in coastal California (Bay Area, Los Angeles, San Diego). We do get a great deal of coastal fog this time of year, and satellite imagery is best for that, along with METARS. For planing purposes, Foreflight Sectionals with a "Flight Rules" overlay is a valuable tool. Where I have seen weather is in the Sierra Nevada mountains, and from the coast or Central Valley, XM seems to consistently show better resolution. Probably someone in the Middle, or Southern states, could address this for you.

XM vs ADS-B (in/out). I like XM's presentation of weather as opposed to ADS-B (NextGen). Less blotchy, or you could call it better resolution. I very much like XM's Winds Aloft page - far more (model) data than NextGen. At any given chosen altitude, the XM screen shows far more (variable direction) wind barbs, and I think it is therefore more useful in optimizing courses or altitudes to either take advantage of tail winds, or minimize the effects of head winds by flying lower or higher, and shifting course to some degree. Finally I like the Sirius music option for longer flights. Yes, I know you can use iPhones/iPads for that, but I like to hunt around the variety of channels for different sorts of music than I would buy as a download. Like they say, different strokes for different folks. So, for now, at least, I will keep up my XM subscription.

The only time I used mogas was in an airplane was for a Cessna 150 (Petersen STC) that we flew to Cabo San Lucas from the Bay Area, and back. Didn't have the range to make it from airport to airport that sold 100LL or 89 Octane fuel. Landed at rancheros and even open fields, and carried a couple of plastic gas cans to local service stations. Worked fine in that (very) low HP situation. I wanted to try mogas in my DOVA LSA, but I couldn't find Ethanol free mogas at any of the local airports near me. Didn't think the survey questions were very well done, but I did complete it.

The KAP 150 itself has been as reliable as my former KFC 200. My AP problems came from a failed AI, and in both cases, the pitch servo. When I had my recent AP problem solved by LAC Avionics, we had the KAP 150 sent back to Honeywell it be checked, and they "fine tuned" and reprogrammed a chip or two, but the KAP 150 was basically OK. Now the combination of rebuilt AI, a new pitch servo, a tuned KAP 150 is awesome. I have a SAM Icarus, for GPSS steering, following flight plans programmed into a GTN 750. Can't ask for better combination

i have them, use them, and enjoy having them Just another tool to use when appropriate. Some days all way to landing. Some days, not at all.

Flew across Cuba going and coming from the Cayman Islands. Beautiful from the air.

Canada, Mexico, many Caribbean islands, Dominican Republic, British West Indies.

Great idea- using the headrest. I will start doing that for the pilot's side. I currently leave the headset on the glare shield, but I worry about scratching the inside of the windshield. The co-pilot side is the problem because, as we all know, it is too easy to get our feet caught in the wires sliding into the pilots seat. The ideal solution, I think, would be a wi -fi or Bluetooth co-pilot side headset I'm not ready to trust wi-fi or Bluetooth for the pilot. About a year ago I saw an ad for a wireless ANR headset, but I didn't see them at Oshkosh this year. As I recall it had some sort of clunky box that hung down from the headphone jacks, and looked as though it still might be in the way in our Mooneys.

Hangar wench model M1A1, v1. Can I trade in my Robowtow?

Mine is in the pilot's side cowl vent. LoPresti cowl, and I didn't chose the location, but it seems to work well at that location.

Fuel filter with the pinhole: Champion Oil Filter part # CH48110-1